Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes with news of a study out of the Netherlands (abstract) about the link between psychosis and marijuana use. The researchers wanted to examine what caused the relationship — was marijuana use leading to psychosis, or did those suffering from psychosis have a higher tendency to seek out marijuana? As it turns out, they found evidence for both. From the article:
"... using pot at 16 years old was linked to psychotic symptoms three years later, and psychotic symptoms at age 16 were linked to pot use at age 19.
This was true even when the researchers accounted for mental illness in the kids' families, alcohol use and tobacco use. Griffith-Lendering said she could not say how much more likely young pot users were to exhibit psychotic symptoms later on. Also, the new study cannot prove one causes the other. Genetics may also explain the link between pot use and psychosis, said Griffith-Lendering."

Griffith-Lendering said she could not say how much more likely young pot users were to exhibit psychotic symptoms later on

Sounds like a sign of a BS study to me - either your sample size and methodology are sufficient to show a numerical correlation, or they're not. If they are, then it's *really* easy to specify the degree of correlation - aka how much more likely it is that a person in group A will also be B. If not, well then your study didn't actually find a statistically significant correlation, did it?

You misinterpreted her statement. The correlation is, in fact, given in the abstract (relevant quote below). What she says she cannot do, because the study did not examine it, was how likely young pot users were to exhibit psychotic symptoms later, i.e. when they were not young (they only covered between 13 and 19 years old, looks like).

FindingsSignificant associations (r=.12-.23) were observed between psychosis vulnerability and cannabis use at all assessments. Also, cannabis use at age 16 predicted psychosis vulnerability at age 19 (z=2.6, p<.05). Furthermore, psychosis vulnerability at ages 13 (z=2.0, p<.05) and 16 (z=3.0, p<.05) predicted cannabis use at, respectively, ages 16 and 19.

So, we learned nothing of value except that studies like this have inconclusive results. Oh, and teenagers can experience psychosis before, during and after using drugs.

And if we knew the results of the study up front, we wouldn't have needed to do the study in the first place. As much as some people like to believe this is some sort of conspiracy theory to keep grant money flowing it's completely natural that at times you find that the results are inconclusive, it's only with 20/20 hindsight you can say it was pointless.

it's just a reminder that "correlation is not the same as causation". In simpler terms, when you notice that you have a Y when you are studying an X, it doesn't mean Y contributed to X. Sometimes it means X contributed to Y. (and sometimes they mutually reinforce each other)

It'd be like finding a link between eating doritos and smoking pot, and thinking the doritos were contributing to the pot smoking. That one's a bit more obvious, but in any event you can't just automatica

Some are like that, but please don't generalise and say it's everyone. There are plenty of people who use it the way others use alcohol and live normal lives. Dumb people aren't made any smarter by pot, so they still have equally dumb ideas... Pot just happens to be what they talk about. The neuronal connections were never there in the first place.

I'd be more inclined to listen to pro-drug arguments if they were rational and not based on feelings or false promises.

I have never used pot and have no plans to, regardless of legality, so I don't have any direct emotional investment in it. However, I do not care if others do it or not, and I don't want my tax money wasted on some people's witchhunts to deal with it.

I don't see why there needs to be a more complicated argument than that. There shouldn't be any irrationality or false promises needed. Half the time I see overly extensive arguments in favor of such things, it is to counter similar overly extensive negative arguments, neither of which should really matter in the end.

Which is more likely:
1) People with psychological issues seek pharmaceutical drugs to help them stay calm and not screw up their lives even though they are hearing voices and other psychotic issues.

2) Drugs cause the problems - but no one ever noticed before.

3) Some idiot won't even consider option #1 and go right option #2 - without any evidence at all, let alone proof.

Note, I have kidney disease - and as such do not take pot, drink alcohol or do any other drug without my doctor's express advice. My body can't handle it - but I'm not stupid enough to think other people have the same problem I do.

Big Pharma is scared shitless of the prospect of Marijuana legalization. Both the Alcohol and Pharma lobbies have a lot to lose with the legalization of Marijuana.

Speaking of big Pharma, I wonder how many of the recent modern spree killers were prescribed and taking psychotropic drugs around the time of their killing sprees? Is it possible that had they been smoking marijuana without taking taking Paxil and Zoloft, they'd have just played a lot of games and eaten a lot of twinkies rather than murdering?

The thing is... Big Pharma could capitalize on placebo if it were ethical and they could patent it (I might even argue that they already do given the actual effectiveness of some drugs).

The problem is, if pot is good for something (or even if it isn't but it helps someone feel better so they shut up) then anybody can supply it. Nobody, except Phillip Morris and their ilk, could possibly ensure that they will profit big from it, when they have to compete. Their business is competing to discovery and patent,

What do you call it when the wind, which some people refer to as an Act Of God, and other such legal mumbo jumbo, are held accountable for it?

They've created a product that migrates on its own, trespasses other people's properties, infects their crops, and then allows a huge corporation with an unfair financial advantage to litigate small farmers to death. All in order to spread their product, which harms biodiversity in the name of huge profits.

I'm not the GP, but I do know that some prescription antidepressants have known side effects that can include violent psychotic breaks and strong suicidal ideation.

That's not conspiracy talk, that's printed on the box.

Having said that, I'd honestly like to know more about this link between marijuana use and psychosis. I know everyone here has already dismissed it, but this is the sort of thing people should have pretty good answers on. It's not a new theory, after all. Show us the results. Good ones. We'll go from there.

First a correction needs to be made. What is the connection between Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) use and psychosis and what is the connection between Cannabidiol (CBD) use and psychsis. What are optimum ratios THC:CBD for say stable use. Which would be much like the safe ratios for alcohol to water in many beverages and yet still orders of magnitude safer, less addictive and less impact on society in terms of violence and reckless behaviour than alcohol. It is well known that THC/CBD use substantially reduce

As a person who has experienced psychosis many times please don't correlate violent and psychotic together. Psychosis is more common without violence than with, by a huge magnitude. Those who become violent "Hearing the voice of God telling them to kill a school full of kids" are not representative of *MOST* of us, just a tiny fraction numbering on one hand.

I have direct experience. As a teenager I was prescribed a drug ostensibly for one reason, but it was listed as treating severe anxiety.

After just 48 hours I had a missing day. My friends say that I want basically "insane" and acted like a manic 6 year old. No violence, no aggression, no hostility. Just super goofy and hyper wanting to do everything. Flushed the pills down the toilet.

That guy that shot up the TDK theater, was on psychiatric drugs, as well as the Newton kid.

You cannot overstate that enough. The SHIT is on the side of the boxes people.

I've tried weed several times, and on some vacations, was high morning, noon, and night, for several days. I experienced no delusions or hallucinations. Just the munchies. I did not feel like jumping off a bridge, or doing some crazy shit like you've seen in the Hangover or some teenage craziness movie.

Granted it may be anecdotal evidence, but at my age, just about every weird moment and adult has explained to me did not come from recreational drugs but pharma drugs or severe overuse of alcohol.

Marijuana/Cannabis is not for everyone, alcohol is not for everyone, we all have personal preferences.

I know cannabis has helped keep me sane. I've found it far more beneficial than the concoction of of man-made, side-effect heavy, possibly lethal pharmaceuticals that the doctor would prefer I took daily.

Marijuana/Cannabis is not for everyone, alcohol is not for everyone, we all have personal preferences.

I know cannabis has helped keep me sane. I've found it far more beneficial than the concoction of of man-made, side-effect heavy, possibly lethal pharmaceuticals that the doctor would prefer I took daily.

I know next to nothing about marijuana... is it still consumed primarily through smoking?

" 1) People with psychological issues seek pharmaceutical drugs to help them stay calm and not screw up their lives even though they are hearing voices and other psychotic issues."

Trust me, as a person who is in this group of people who become psychotic when exposed to marijuana smoke/plant fumes, you do not seek out grass when you are feeling psychotic. You know that it makes the symptoms worse. You may seek out drugs like tranqs and E and opiates... but not grass.

Which is more likely: 1) People with psychological issues seek pharmaceutical drugs to help them stay calm and not screw up their lives even though they are hearing voices and other psychotic issues.

2) Drugs cause the problems - but no one ever noticed before.

There are all kinds of possibilities. Your #1 actually doesn't seem to fit, since they observed that the time-sequencing of the events worked both ways. Having psychotic symptoms at one time was correlated with smoking dope at a later age, but smoking dope was also correlated with psychotic symptoms later.

Some other possibilities:

3) Some genetic or environmental factor tends to cause both marijuana use and psychotic symptoms. (The summary explicitly mentions the genetic possibility.)

"it is reason it is forbidden in the first place"no. It was forbidden becasue lies were spread about it and ignorant parents became scared and politicians just outlawed it instead of getting actual data and presenting it to the public.It was outlaws do to perception of an issue.

If you'd like one, I can offer several good arguments for the legalization of recreational use of marijuana, such as those revolving around the monetary and social costs of criminalization. But all I was doing was pointing out that the criminalization of marijuana – even for legitimate, supervised scientific study – prevents the kind of research which might better establish whether the recreational use is harmful, and to what extent. To use your half-baked analogy, we do p

It's only illegal because there is so much money to made from the illegal trade. A legal trade would kill profits.

Not to mention the money to be made on the 'legal' side of the street with larger police budgets, more private prisons, the billions of dollars spent in the 'War On Drugs' that the US has clearly lost. It's in their self-interest to keep grass illegal, that's how they make a living.

"The researchers wanted to examine what caused the relationship — was marijuana use leading to psychosis, or did those suffering from psychosis have a higher tendency to seek out marijuana?"

Just because one event happens after the other doesn't prove ANY causation in this case - even the summary lifted from the article clearly points this out, and in fact the author of the article makes no claims as to cause.

And calling it a "bidirectional link" is mostly pointless, it's only "bidirectional" in tempor

There are many existing studies that have already proven several things about marijuana use:

1. Smoking (anything) raises your risk of oral and lung cancers, including marijuana.2. Marijuana lowers IQ in developing brains, e.g. children and adolescents. If you've seen the kind of permanent damage neurons experience after smoking marijuana, this is hardly surprising.3. Marijuana causes psychosis in healthy people and worsens it in those with existing conditions.4. Marijuana is addictive. It's a hotly debated

4. Marijuana is addictive. It's a hotly debated point but the fact is that many people really struggle to stop using it and relapse.

Meaning... you know there is no real support for this, but you want to throw it out there as a claim anyway. You do know that by this same standard tanning is addictive too, right?

Marijuana advocates reject all criticism, and assume all scientific studies are somehow flawed or are the result of anti-marijuana conspiracies. To them marijuana _has_ to be the perfect drug, even if reality contradicts that viewpoint. Sounds crazy, but it's roughly what you'd expect from people who are no longer living in our reality.

Looking glass time. You are describing your own rejection of scientific evidence.

Given humans have been using weed for millennia and it's used recreationally all over the world, surely this means something? Even anecdotally, most people would know of several cases of hospitalization/institutionalization due to cannabis use if this drug was a real threat.

well, there's plenty of cases where people blame weed for stupid shit they've done - so you'd have no trouble finding institutionalized people who would claim their cannabis use caused them to become institutionalized and well, you'll find plenty of people who were institutionalized to jail for it of course too - though strictly speaking in those cases it's the law and other people who have caused them to be institutionalized and isolated(again compounding possible mental locks and general unhappiness with life).

just as there's plenty of cases where people blame alcohol for the stupid shit they've done. AA is full of them.

still, if an alcie goes to doctor because of anger issues/unstability(that they blame on drinking) around here it's quite usual they're given diazepam. which would be all good if they weren't unstable alcoholics and the pams just enhance that. giving them a bag of weed would be much better, at least if someone is going too deep with weed they're not 99.99% of time going to hurt anyone, themselves or others, except through inactivity. someone with anger issues gets alcohol+diazepam psychosis and someone is going to get hurt - via physical assault.

this study doesn't really surprise me at all though, it's even on the "no shit sherlock" level, it's so blatantly obvious. still, it's nice that they bothered to make a real study about that unhappy people seek a fix.

I don't drink anymore due to health issues(pancreatitis is a bitch that wont let her eye off you) and would be very glad if they legalized weed around here. Sure, it might make you spend a lot of time thinking with yourself and laughing at stupid shit along the way but quite frankly what's so bad about that?

Psychosis as a term is so fucking all over the place that it's almost useless as a word too, since it can mean fucking anything - even me wanting to emphasize things with "fucking" is a form of psychosis if you ask the right idiot. basically most weedsters use psychosis as a word for being bored nowadays(they're out of weed it's "psychosis", they got some good weed but nothing fun to do while smoking it and it's psychosis again! they smoke enough that they're practically sleeping and that too then is psychosis.) - it's so fucked up thanks to the prohibitionists. hell, even being drunk is "psychosis" nowadays, fucking pansies.

Disingenuous.
This is a study of cannabis and psychosis. Tobacco has other harmful effects but nothing I'm aware of that can harm mental health. Alcohol on moderation has been proven time and time again to be safe, or even beneficial. You might as well advocate banning aspirin. I've heard that if it's not used in moderation it's a stone cold killer.

His argument not only applies to but is based on the comparison to alcohol and tobacco, which have many well-proven side effects and long term medical issues. As he pointed out, Marijuana on the other hand does not have such clearly proven effects, and certainly none as serious as liver disease or lung cancer.

Except medically and scientifically that's an inane and inaccurate cliche.

Medically, absence of evidence (those being said side effects and long term issues/diseases) is just data in a massively complex multivariable system. If (taking into account other factors) there is no increase in a disease in a population using a drug, it statistically doesn't cause an increase in risk. With risk being a statistic assessment, the POINT is to use statistical analysis, and absence of a result can be just as significa

If you look at the charts two things stand out - that the most potent commonly consumed cannabis, sensimilla, has not changed in potency since 1990, that is more than twenty years. So this product is exactly the same as it has been for a couple of decades or more.

The second is that the generic "marijuana" has over the same time inched up by 80% over the same time, less than a single doubling, and is still half that of sensimilla of 20+ years ago.

Let me put this question to you: is a Sam Adams Boston Lager very different in its health and drug abuse risks than a Sam Adams Double Bock? The latter has 80% more alcohol than the former. You will not find anyone in the alcohol abuse treatment community claiming that alcoholic proof has the slightest bit of difference in the risk and harm of alcohol consumption.

As far as i know the active ingredient is the same as it has always been. You have modern strains of weed that might produce more of it, but so what. We have always had the ability to concentrate high levels of THC into things like hashish and pot oil. The dose you ingest has always depended on what you smoke and how much. Three fat stogies of 1978 Columbian gold or one medium sized J of 2012 Northern Lights and you are in exactly the same place.

Its like arguing that wine is twice as bad for you as beer because it contains twice the percent of alcohol.

It's not exactly related to TFA, but my girlfriend has been diagnosed with post-partum psychosis a year ago.She's been treated with many different medications that didn't work that well.The end result is that she's been in a clinic for 9 months out of 12, and I've been a solo dad meanwhile.She often looks like a zombie, and still hear voices even though she's under heavy medication.

Coming from somebody who suffers from schizophrenia, I'll tell you the drugs never helped kill the voices or the thoughts of paranoia. They worked as a tranquilizer, I was taking Clozapine in the end (all the milder drugs did nothing for me and in many cases made it worse). The only thing that helped was learning to cope with the voices and paranoid thoughts, and put them where they appropriately belong (in the garbage). Lots and lots of therapy.

I went through the same thing. Families often hide this well, but you'll generally find a strain of it in the family. When they grow up, it takes something to kick it off. Men usually "get" it at 18 - 21; just the tribulations of growing up is often enough to do it. Women often hang on quite some while. I suspect early birth control, possibly combined with pot use, can stave off the onset of inherited mental illness. Both of which stop abruptly upon pregnancy. And then childbirth, the single most emotional

yet none of them has found any serious and life threatening illnesses caused by weed smoking/eating compared to alcohol, alcohol mixed with Tylenol, pharma drugs, side effects of chemical leeching out of every day plastics or even walking down the road and breaking a leg. YET they try and try and try and....

Sorry for the double post, but I just thought of another important (to me, anyway) objection.

All the pot smokers in the study have one major attribute in common: They started their *regular* drug use *early*-- many of them at age 16 or before. Which frankly, is probably not the best thing for a developing brain. It's also a socioeconomic red flag that suggests a lot of confounders: these kids came from the wrong side of the tracks, they've had crappy and neglectful parenting, they've dropped out of school

You are vastly underestimating the prevalence of marijuana use. Check this [nih.gov] survey out. 36 percent of high school seniors report having smoked marijuana in the past year, 23 percent in the past month, and 6.5 percent are daily users. These *are* the kids that are taking AP Calc and gunning for the Ivy League.

You are correct that disadvantaged or troubled kids are statistically more likely to be using drugs, but everything you say after "socieconomic red flag" in your original post is so wildy off base it almost seems like you're trolling. Very successful people are regular marijuana users, most of those people started in their teens, and they are not in any way statistical outliers. The idea that a teenager smoking marijuana implies that they had poor parents or are on the verge of failing out of school is absurd.

How was the data inconclusive? It seems to me that the data is as conclusive as a single study can be.

It shows that there isn't a simple relationship where either one causes the other, or the other causes the one. In that respect, it may be similar to alcohol, where people tend to drink more when they're depressed, and alcohol is a depressant.

How was the data inconclusive? It seems to me that the data is as conclusive as a single study can be.

It shows that there isn't a simple relationship where either one causes the other, or the other causes the one. In that respect, it may be similar to alcohol, where people tend to drink more when they're depressed, and alcohol is a depressant.

Well, in over 30 years of smoking weed and knowing people that smoke weed, I have NOT found one person to have Psychosis.Yet in over 40 years of living I have found a shit load of religious people that have Psychosis.

So many lies, for so long, for all the wrong reasons, what is the truth?

This is your brain (frying pan).

This is your brain on drugs (egg frying in that frying pan).

You know, I stopped believe in what adults told me as a child. Why?

They said Santa was real, he isn't.They said The Tooth Fairy was real, she's not.Easter bunny? Not real.This will hurt me more then it will hurt you? Lies!Do as I say, not as I do? Set a better example!Babies come in storks!

With adults spending a lot of time lying to children, is it no surprise when they don't believe you about anything?

I looked up the meaning of psychosis: Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality that usually includes: False beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions); Seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations).

That describes religious people, not stoners.

I've known people that smoke weed for over 40 years, and none of them see shit that isn't there. None of them believe in false stuff, except the religious ones. Most the others have businesses, jobs, responsibilities they take care of.

I've known druggies that lost reality after ODing on coke or heroin, but I have NEVER seen anyone do that on weed.

What I gained from the article was kids that have psychosis are more likely to use drugs, which doesn't surprise me. I was diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia when I was in my mid 30's. Growing up I had no idea why people heard me say different things then I was saying, why people always took what i said or did at it's worse instead of how it was intended and why I had a hard time functioning socially with people. During my 20's I did a shit ton of drugs. I gave up, I didn't understand why I had problems with people. Drugs (heroin) made me feel better, or made me not care for a bit, made life a bit more bearable (so i thought). After I found out about my dyslexia and ADHD and got help for that, I understood finally what the problem had been. I had no problem quitting my heroin addiction after that. In fact, in almost 10 years since I found out, I've been clean. (I don't count weed as a drug like heroin, coke, benzo's, etc).

Funny how people have been smoking weed since it's been around and in over 100 years of recorded medical history we still get stories like this, that really have nothing to do with anything.

Ah, yes, the infamous S word strikes again.What mightier weapon could you have for disinformation and propaganda?You could fork over money to an " independent" research facility to get "findings" spun to order or you could just wait for the avalanche of college studies to spill a particularly inept one that supports your agenda before review demolishes it next month. No matter who you are, no matter what your agenda is, there is a study out there for you. The public mistake these for scientific fact and ac

Ever wondered how much less shitty the world might be if people like yourself just minded their own business?

Potheads want to smoke? What does it cost you, exactly? Put a price on what it actually costs you, for potheads to light up. No, you can't count the exorbitant costs of maintaining the DEA, the narc squad at your local police department, or the drug interdiction teams at the state level. You can't count all the costs involved in smuggling drugs. Those costs are created by nosy bastards who can't stand the idea that potheads might want to get high.

Pot can be grown in backyards for little to nothing. The pothead grows his own, dries it, rolls it, and smokes it at almost no cost to society, but people like yourself want to get involved. Why? Let the dopehead do his thing. That mellowed out bastard poses NO THREAT to you and yours.

So, just maybe you're partly right. Maybe if he spent all that energy and resources on bettering himself, or helping the community, the world just might be a little better.

Then again - I've met a lot of dopeheads who were veterans. They've already given to the communities across America. Leave them the hell alone!

Whatever their reasons for smoking pot, that's THEIR problem, not yours.

Shut up, sit down, and learn some tolerance. Maybe the potheads will allow you to sit with them, eat some munchies, and sing 'Kumbayah'. Think about it. Free munchies and some comaraderie. You don't even have to light up, they aren't as prejudiced as you are.

Heh - I never gave a thought to the timing of criminalization of Mary J, that way.

I think the more important timing is, nylon rope became commercially available right about then. You know, the then new technology developed by DuPont. All that cordage that the Navy required prior to nylon rope was replaced by Nylon, which the DuPont companies had a monopoly on. Prior to uhhhh - was it 1942? farmers were actually REQUIRED to produce so much hemp each year. Hemp was a vital resource, and Uncle had plenty o

Heh - I never gave a thought to the timing of criminalization of Mary J, that way.

I think the more important timing is, nylon rope became commercially available right about then. You know, the then new technology developed by DuPont. All that cordage that the Navy required prior to nylon rope was replaced by Nylon, which the DuPont companies had a monopoly on. Prior to uhhhh - was it 1942? farmers were actually REQUIRED to produce so much hemp each year. Hemp was a vital resource, and Uncle had plenty of regulations in place to ensure that he would never run out of that resource.

But, yes, I'm sure that your observation had some influence on passage of the criminalization laws. DuPont won, the prison industries won, and only dopeheads lost. That almost certainly swayed some undecided representatives who hadn't been bribed enough.

Thanks. Agree about the commercial interests. You glossed "the prison industries" too quick. You want to linger on that one for a while. There is a reason we call them "prison industries". Employees of the court, lawyers and "prison industries" are the self-centered "law and order" contingent that needs a legally oppressed legally criminal minority to maintain their quality of life. They have a profit motive. It falls down when they sentence a killer to 9 Months, and a weed dealer that never hurt anyb

Alcohol was already illegal then in Egypt, and they didn't lack for a local population to oppress either. And then there's the "League of Nations" business, which makes the UN's ability to write a stern letter an overwhelming show of force.

A study in 2005 confirmed the previously discovered link between increased rates of psychosis-related mental disorders and cannabis use in the general population, but went on to show through statistical analysis of data from The Netherlands that this link was greatly increased by a genetic pre-disposition to suffering from those same mental disorders, and that the actual increase in mental disorders that could be attributed to cannabis use was much lower than previously feared, 1.5-2.5% overall IIRC*.

I don't know what kind of expansion you are talking about. After years of watching pot smokers I can't actually say their minds have expanded at all. Some of them seem to have lost a bit of functionality, actually.

Well, personally, after 35 years of regular marijuana smoking , I'm still not in Mensa, but neither was Einstein, we both sit in only the top 4%.I don't find marijuana so much expanding as I find it a quiet place to study, a land of engineering fully loaded, and a gift directly from God himself, who makes no mention of regulation.Right there in the first book of Genesis. "All the seed bearing plants"Sounds like you just run the same tape you heard, out your mouth like all the rest of the sheeple who can't t

I'm a pretty heavy pot smoker myself and know potheads of all types. Smart, stupid, lazy, motivated etc. Just like the rest of the population. But, anecdotally I have always thought smoking pot (or doing any drug) at a young age was bad. I noticed that most people I know who used to smoke when they were young can't now because it makes them way too paranoid or zone out and shut down. People I know who started smoking when they were older don't see to have this issue. Myself included.

Weed isn't about to expand people's brains, but to say that a single study is even remotely relevant without research and validation from those who can analyze the study is questionable at best. Add this to the mix of "people just don't like that other people smoke weed", as opposed to anything based on facts.

In that case, I'd like to cite the film "Superhigh Me". (Don't laugh... yet)

During this film, a guy spends a month not smoking pot does a bunch of tests, then spends a month smoking pot 24/7 and retakes them. In a basic SATS test, his score and psychic ability (I wish I was kidding about that soooo much) go up after spending a month high and his ability to do mental arithmetic goes down, along with taking away his ability to drive.

LOL, I'll cite Dr. Timothy Leary who conducted research at Harvard as well as many other facilities for years and years.Did you really think I was just running my mouth? Why do you think the government put ANY money into it at all? Military applications? Don't make me laugh! Except for the obvious use, it didn't need much research for the Military.Now quit playing back the garbage you hear in lieu of thought you honestly generated yourself.